The Prolegomenon to Proclus’ Platonic Theology
An Introduction, Translation, and Commentary of Chapters 1-7 of
Book I of the Platonic Theology
Thèse
Simon Fortier
Doctorat en Philosophie
Philosophiae Doctor (Ph.D.)
Québec, Canada
© Simon Fortier, 2014
iii
Résumé
Bien qu‘elle représente son opus magnum, la Théologie platonicienne de Proclus a souvent été négligée par les études néoplatoniciennes récentes. Hormis l‘importante édition et traduction de cette œuvre dans la Collection des Universités de France (Proclus, Théologie platonicienne, 6 vol., éd. H. D. Saffrey et L. G. Westerink, Paris, 1968-1997), et le
Festschrift qui l‘a célébrée par la suite (Proclus et la théologie platonicienne, Actes du Colloque International de Louvain [13-16 mai 1998], en l'honneur de H. D. Saffrey et L. G. Westerink (†), éd. A. Ph. Segonds (†) et C. Steel,, Leuven/Paris, 2000), peu de travaux ont été consacrés à la Théologie platonicienne. Le signe le plus révélateur de ce manque criant est sans aucun doute l‘absence d‘une traduction anglaise digne de foi et d‘un commentaire détaillé de cette œuvre, pourtant capitale, de la tradition philosophique occidentale.
La présente traduction anglaise des premiers chapitres des prolégomènes de la
Théologie platonicienne (chap. 1-7), accompagnée d‘une introduction, d‘un essai interprétatif et d‘un commentaire détaillé, cherche en partie à combler cette lacune, espérant aussi
v
Abstract
Despite being his magnum opus, Proclus‘ Platonic Theology has been largely overlooked by the contemporary revival of Neoplatonic scholarship. Aside the publication of H. D. Saffrey and L. G. Westerink‘s edition in the Collection des Universités de France (Proclus,
Théologie platonicienne, 6 vol., éd. H. D. Saffrey et L. G. Westerink, Paris, 1968-1997), and a Festschrift dedicated thereto (Proclus et la théologie platonicienne, Actes du Colloque International de Louvain [13-16 mai 1998], en l'honneur de H. D. Saffrey et L. G. Westerink (†), éd. A. Ph. Segonds (†) et C. Steel, Leuven/Paris, 2000), scant work has been done on the Platonic Theology. Perhaps the most telling signs of the neglect from which it has suffered are its lack of at once a reliable English translation and detailed commentary.
The present English translation of the opening chapters of the prolegomenon of the Platonic Theology (chap. 1-7), with its accompanying introduction, interpretative essay, and running commentary, is therefore an attempt to give this work some of the attention it so richly deserves.
vii CONTENTS RÉSUMÉ ... III ABSTRACT ... V ABBREVIATIONS ... IX ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... XV INTRODUCTION ... 1 Proclus‟ Plato ...1
The TP: Its Purpose and Structure ...7
The Prolegomenon ... 15
The Text, the Translations, and the Present Work ... 17
PLATO‘S THEOLOGY ... 23
I. On Methodology ... 24
I.1) Open Discourse I: The Dialectical Method ... 26
I.2) Open Discourse II: The Entheastic Method ... 31
I.3) Allusion I: The Imagistic Method ... 34
I.4) Allusion II: The Symbolic Method... 41
II. The Parmenides ... 47
II.1) The Logical Interpretation ... 49
II.2) The Metaphysical Interpretation ... 52
II.2.1) The Ontological Interpretation ... 53
II.2.2) A Blueprint of Reality ... 58
III. Henology/Agathology ... 59
III.1) Henology ... 63
III.2) Agathology ... 76
III.3) The Yawning Gulf ... 79
IV. Henadology ... 80
IV.1) The Participated One ... 81
IV.2) The Religious Aspect ... 84
V. The Order of the Gods ... 88
V.1) Being: The Intelligible Gods ... 91
V.3) Life: The Intelligible-Intellective Gods ... 98
V.4) Intellect: The Intellective Gods ... 103
V.5) Soul: The Hypercosmic and Hypercosmic-Encosmic Gods ... 107
Conclusion ... 111 TEXT ... 113 TEXTUAL EMENDATIONS ... 131 TRANSLATION ... 133 Chapter 1 ... 133 Chapter 2 ... 135 Chapter 3 ... 138 Chapter 4 ... 142 Chapter 5 ... 146
viii Chapter 6 ... 148 Chapter 7 ... 151 COMMENTARY ... 153 Commentary on chapter 1 ... 153 Commentary on chapter 2 ... 169 Commentary on chapter 3 ... 175 Commentary on chapter 4 ... 191 Commentary on chapter 5 ... 202 Commentary on chapter 6 ... 211 Commentary on chapter 7 ... 218 BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 223
ix
A
BBREVIATIONSGeneral:
TP = Proclus, Theologia Platonica.
Editions and translations of the TP:
Abb. = Teologia Platonica, trans. M. Abbate (Milan: Bompiani, 2005).
C.-L. = Teologia Platonica, trans. M. Casaglia and A. Linguiti (Turin: Unione tipografico-editrice torinese, 2007)
D.-G. = English translation of the first three chapters of the TP in Neoplatonic
Philosophy: Introductory Readings, trans. J. Dillon and L. P. Gerson (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 2004).
S.-W. = Théologie platonicienne, vol. I-VI, ed. and trans. H.-D. Saffrey and L. G. Westerink (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1968-1997).
Taylor = The Theology of Plato, trans. T. Taylor (originally published in 1816; reprinted at Frome, Somerset, UK: Prometheus Trust, 1995)
Editions of other works by Proclus:
De decem dub. = De decem dubistationes circa providentiam (Procli Tria Opuscula, ed. H. Boese [Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1960]).
x
De prov. = De providentia et fato et eo quod in nobis (ibid.).
In Alc. = In Platonis Alcibiadem (Sur le Premier Alcibiade de Platon, vol. I-II, ed. and trans. A.-Ph. Segonds [Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1985-1986]).
In Crat. = In Platonis Cratylum commentaria, ed. G. Pasquali (Leipzig: Teubner, 1908). In Euc. =In primum Euclidis elementorum librum commentarii , ed. G. Friedlein
(Leipzig: Teubner, 1873).
In Parm. = In Platonis Parmenidem commentaria, vol. I-III, ed. C. Steel (Oxford: OUP, 2007).
In Parm. L.-S. = In Platonis Parmenidem commentaria (Commentaire sur le Parménide de Platon, vol. I-III, ed. and trans. C. Luna and A.-Ph. Segonds [Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2007-2011]).
In Remp. = In Platonis rem publicam commentarii, vol. I-II, ed. W. Kroll (Leipzig: Teubner, 1899-1901).
In Tim. =In Platonis Timaeum commentaria, vol. I-III, ed. E. Diehl (Leipzig: Teubner, 1903-1906).
IT = Institutio theologica (The Elements of Theology, ed. and trans. E. R. Dodds [Oxford: OUP, 1963]).
Editions and translations of other ancient texts:
Dam. In Parm. = Damascius, In Parmenidem (Commentaire du Parménide de Platon, vol. I-II, ed. and trans. J. Combès, A.-Ph. Segonds, and L. G. Westerink [Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1997]).
xi De deis = Sallustius, De deis et mundo (Concerning the Gods and the Universe, ed. and
trans. A. D. Nock [Cambridge: CUP, 1926]).
De myst. = Iamblichus, De mysteriis (On the Mysteries, ed. and trans. E. C. Clarke, J. M. Dillon, and J. P. Hershbell [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003]).
In Met. = Syrianus, Syrianii In Metaphysica commentatria, ed. G. Kroll (Berlin: G. Reimeri, 1902).
In Phaed. = Damascius, In Phaedonem (Commentary on Plato’s Phaedo, versions I and II, in The Greek commentaries on Plato’s Phaedo, vol. 2, ed. and trans. L. G. Westerink [Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1977]).
Met.= Aristotle, Metaphysica, ed. W. Jaeger (Oxford: OUP, 1963).
Num. = Numenius of Emesa, Numénius : Fragments, ed. and trans. E. Des Places (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1974).
Or. Chald. = Oracles Chaldaïques, ed. and trans. E. Des Places, rev. and corr. A.-Ph. Segonds (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1996).
Plot. Op.= Plotini Opera, vol. I-III, ed. P. Henry and H.-R. Schwyzer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964-1983).
Prol. ad Plat. Phil. = Prolegomena philosophiae Platonicae (Prolégomènes à la
philosophie de Platon, ed. and trans. L. G. Westerink [Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1990]).
V. Isid. = Damascius, Vita Isidori (The Philosophical History, ed. and trans. P. Athanassiadi [Athens: Apamea Cultural Association, 1999]).
V. Procli = Marinus, Vita Procli (Proclus ou sur le Bonheur, ed. and trans. H. D. Saffrey and A.-Ph. Segonds [Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2002]).
xii
Armstrong [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969-1988]).
V. Pyth. = Iamblichus, De vita Pythagorica (Vie de Pythagore, ed. and trans. L. Brisson and A.-Ph. Segonds [Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2011]).
In Phaedr. = Hermias, In Platonis Phaedrum Commentarii, ed. C. M. Lucarini and C. Moreschini (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2012).
Suda = Suidae lexicon, vol. I-IV, ed. A. Adler (Leipzig: Teubner, 1928-1935).
Modern works:
Denniston = J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles (Oxford: OUP, 1954).
Dodds = E. R. Dodds, Introduction and Commentary to The Elements of Theology (Oxford: OUP, 1963).
Fest. = A.-J. Festugière, ―Notes critiques sur le livre I de la Théologie Platonicienne‖ in Proclus et la Théologie platonicienne, Actes du colloque international de Louvain (13-16 mai 1998) en l‘honneur de H. D. Saffrey et L.G. Westerink, ed. A.-Ph. Segonds and C. Steel (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2000), pp. xxix-xli.
Künher-Gerth = R. Kühner and B. Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache (Munich: Hueber 1963).
Proclus et la Théologie platonicienne = Proclus et la Théologie platonicienne, Actes du colloque international de Louvain (13-16 mai 1998) en l‘honneur de H. D. Saffrey et L.G. Westerink, ed. A.-Ph. Segonds and C. Steel (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2000).
Proclus lecteur et interprète = Proclus lecteur et interprète des Anciens, Actes du
colloque International du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985), ed. J. Pépin and H. D. Saffrey (Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1987).
xiii Smyth = H. W. Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1920).
Sigla:
CAG = Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, ed. consilio et auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borussicae (Berlin: Reimer, 1882-1909).
DK = H. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, vols I-III (Berlin: Weidmann, 1951).
DPhA= Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, ed. R. Goulet (Paris : Éditions du CNRS, 1989-present).
LSJ = H. G. Liddell, R. Scott and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: OUP, 1940).
OED = Oxford English Dictionary online edition (Oxford: OUP).
RE = Paulys Realencyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft : neue Bearbeitung unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Fachgenossen, 2nd edition, ed. G. Wissowa, W. Kroll, and K. Witte (Stuttgart: A. Druckenmuller, 1893-1980).
xv
A
CKNOWLEDGEMENTSI should first like to thank my supervisor, Jean-Marc Narbonne, Professor at the Faculté de philosophie of Université Laval, who warmly welcomed me to Québec and graciously consented to supervise a thesis written dans la langue de Shakespeare. Without his advice and support, both theoretical and practical, this thesis would not have seen the light of day.
I should also like to thank the members of my thesis committee, Bernard Collette, Philippe Hoffmann, Claude Lafleur, and Alain Lernould, for their comments and suggestions.
Finally, this thesis was written with the financial support of the Richard J. Schmeelk Canada Fellowship and the SSHRC, for which I thank both organisations.
I
NTRODUCTIONProclus‘ Plato
It is now generally accepted that Proclus shares with Plato the distinction of having been an extraordinarily gifted thinker. The meteoric scholarly career which Marinus ascribes to him, however embellished, does not surprise in the least, given the quality of his writings and the scope of his influence.1 His surviving commentaries on the Timaeus, Parmenides, First Alcibiades, Cratylus, and Republic, though all incomplete, remain masterpieces of the commentarial style which characterised late antique thought. What is more, the lost works on the Gorgias, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Theaetetus, Sophist, and Philebus may have outshone even these.2 His expository talents, however, were hardly confined to Plato‘s texts alone. The
1 Numerous instances of Proclus‘ intellectual abilities are offered in the V. Procli. For example, Marinus
informs us (V. Procli, 12, 9-10) that Proclus, rather than immediately embarking on a study of the complete Aristotelian and Platonic curricula in their so-called ‗Iamblichean‘ order, read the De anima and the Phaedo with the now aged Plutarch. This breach of the normal reading order illustrates something fundamental, yet often overlooked, about these lists. They were constructed according to Neoplatonic virtue theory in order to lead the average student from the lowest to highest virtues. Proclus therefore began with an advanced Aristotelian treatise alongside the third of dialogues in the reading order (after the First Alcibiades and the Gorgias) because Plutarch likely felt him to possess already the virtues inculcated by the first two dialogues and by earlier Aristotelian treatises. As the portrait of Proclus by Marinus has been redrawn several times in earlier works, we shall forgo the ritual and instead direct the reader to the recapitulation offered at S.-W., I.ix-xxvi and that of L. Siorvanes in his Proclus: neo-platonic philosophy and science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996). For other, less sympathetic anecdotes concerning Proclus‘ life, see Damascius‘ V. Isid.
2 The lost commentary on the Theaetetus is described by Marinus, Proclus‘ biographer, as having much pleased
its author (V. Procli, 38, 14), while the Suda offers us the following anecdote concerning Marinus‘ own commentary on the Philebus: ―[Isidore] having come to Athens a second time, since their common teacher had died, he [i.e. Marinus] showed him a commentary composed by him at great length on Plato‘s Philebus, bidding him at once to peruse [it] and to judge whether the book should be published. Having read it carefully he did not hide any of his opinions, yet uttered no unseemly word, but said only this, that their teacher‘s commentary on the dialogue was sufficient. And having understood this [Marinus] presently destroyed the book by fire. (ἐθεόκηζ ηὸ δεύηενμκ Ἀεήκαγε, ημῦ ημζκμῦ δζδαζηάθμο ηεηεθεοηδηόημξ, ἐπέδεζλεκ αὐηῶ ζοββεβναιιέκμκ ὑπυικδια πνὸξ ἑαοημῦ ζηίπςκ παιπυθθςκ εἰξ ηὸκ Πθάηςκμξ Φίθδαμκ, ἐκηοπεῖκ ηε ηαὶ ἐπζηνῖκαζ ηεθεφζαξ εἰ ἐλμζζηέμκ εἴδ ηὸ αζαθίμκ. ὁ δὲ ἀκαβκμὺξ ἐπζιεθξ μὐδὲκ ἀπεηνύραημ ηκ αὑηῶ δμημύκηςκ, μὐ ιέκημζ ἄιμοζμκ ἀθηε θςκὴκ μὐδειίακ, ημζμῦημκ δὲ ἔθδ ιόκμκ, ἱηακὰ εἶκαζ ηὰ ημῦ δζδαζηάθμο ὑπμικήιαηα εἰξ ηὸκ δζάθμβμκ: ζοκεὶξ δ‘ἐηεῖκμξ παναοηίηα δζέθεεζνε πονὶ ηὸ αζαθίμκ.)‖. Suda, Μ. 199, 3-10. For a complete list of the works
2
startling diversity of his known and attested works, from his commentaries on Homer, Euclid, Plotinus, and Ptolemy, to his topical works on theology, astronomy and literature, paint the picture of a man with an encyclopedic knowledge of nearly every branch of Greek culture and thought.
The quality of these writings, combined with his reputation as a sage and ability as a teacher, secured Proclus an enormous influence amongst Neoplatonic circles. Indeed, Neoplatonism at the turn of the sixth century may justly be called ‗post-Proclean‘. Decades after his death, Damascius still considered Proclus to be his principal intellectual rival, while the most celebrated ideas of the Alexandrian commentators may equally be traced back to the great Athenian master. Proclus was undoubtedly the chief philosophical authority of the last of the Hellenes, one whose ideas were both appealed to and inveighed against, but never ignored.
It is a further testament to Proclus‘ genius that while his direct influence faded following Justinian‘s suppression of the pagan schools, his ideas continued to exercise an enormous indirect influence on Western thought. The immense popularity of the works of his devoted student, the Pseudo-Dionysius (fl. 500), and of a compilation of extracts from the IT which came to be known as the Liber de causis, gave Proclean thought a central role in the Latin, Greek, and Arab middle ages. Moreover, when Plato finally returned to the Latin world, he was accompanied by Proclus and his fellow Neoplatonists, whose works were procured by the great Florentine Humanists alongside those of their master. The influence of Proclus on the likes of Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499), his student Pico della Mirandolla (1463-1494), and Nicolas of Cusa (1401-1464), assured that the Renaissant interpretation of Plato, which would endure well into the seventeenth century,3 bore no small Proclean mark. The eighteenth century, however, saw the emergence of modern philological and historical attributed to Proclus and the sources of these attributions, see G. Endress, ―Proclus‖ in DPhA, vol. 5b, p. 1546-1674.
3 As proof of Proclus‘ enduring influence in the seventeenth century, we need only look to what André Dacier
(1651-1722) wrote of him in the introduction to his translation of the complete works of Plato: ―Ce dernier [i.e. Proclus] estoit très-grand philosophe… Nous avons de ce Proclus encore six livres sur la Théologie de Platon et des Institutions Théologiques : ses ouvrages sont fort difficiles à entendre, parce qu‘il est fort abstrait. Mais quand on peut les pénétrer, on les trouve très profond et plein des choses admirables… Mais il faut le lire avec beaucoup de jugement et de précaution, car ces choses si admirables sont meslées de beaucoup d‘erreurs dans lesquelles la haine, dont il estoit animé contre les Chrétiens, l‘avoit fait tomber.‖ Les oeuvres de Platon, vol. 1, 279-280.
3 scholarship, particularly in Protestant lands, which ushered in growing a demand to interpret Plato sola scriptura. This demand culminated in the rejection of the Proclean-tinged ‗systematic‘ interpretations of Plato in favour of the ‗developmental‘ or ‗genetic‘4 and sceptical interpretations5. By the following century, this rejection was nearly total.
It is one of history‘s cruel ironies that at this nadir of Proclus‘ philosophical influence, his writings began to emerge from obscurity. He and his interpretation of Plato were therefore received by few nineteenth-century scholars as anything more than another curious example of late antique decadence. His reputation as a philosopher has since recovered, yet his authority as an exegete, or lack thereof, remains unchanged. Contemporary commentators who do not ignore Proclus entirely are apt to treat his Plato in the same manner as Aquinas‘ Aristotle or Heidegger‘s Nietzsche. In each case, they hold, the subject of the commentary has become little more than a vehicle for the commentator‘s own thought. In other words, Proclus‘ Plato is but a Proclean Neoplatonist avant la lettre.
4 The ‗developmental‘ or ‗genetic‘ interpretation may be said to have its origin in the F. Schleiermacher‘s
(1768-1834) German translation of Plato. In his ample introductions to the various dialogues, Schleiermacher laid out a new interpretation of Plato which aimed to treat the dialogues as the sole useful source for our knowledge of the Platonic system. Although his idea that the Platonic corpus contains an explicit system has been rejected by many, the idea that it is the sole source of our knowledge of Plato‘s thought has been widely accepted. The acceptance of the latter and the rejection of the former hypothesis have led to a debate over how to account for the diversity of the Platonic corpus, which has in turn spawned a variety of genetic accounts of Plato‘s intellectual development. These accounts are usually based upon a supposed stylistic or dramatic chronological ordering of the corpus, which is then used to paint a portrait of the thinker such as that which we find in G. Ryle‘s influential monograph entitled Plato’s Progress (Cambridge: CUP, 1966).
5 Arcesilaus of Pitane (c. 315-c. 240) and his later successor Carneades (214-129/8) transformed the Platonic
Academy by transforming its founder into a sceptic.Whether the teachings of sceptic Pyrrho (c. 365-c. 275) had any influence on this radical shift in the Academy‘s teachings is uncertain, yet what remains certain is that the sceptical interpretation of Plato offers three concrete advantages over its rivals. Firstly, it highlights an undeniable aspect of the Platonic Socrates, namely, his tendency towards reasoning from his opponents‘ premises rather than supplying his own. Secondly, it offers a convincing interpretation of Plato‘s Theaetetus, while thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, it is a refuge for those wishing to escape the deeply dogmatic interpretations which are often thrust upon Plato. For these reasons, the sceptical interpretation has been able to overcome its clear limitations with regard to much of the Platonic corpus and attract a string of distinguished adherents including Cicero, Plutarch, Leonardo Bruni, Montaigne, and George Grote. Although it saw an ebb in its fortunes during the early twentieth century, it is now enjoying a minor resurgence in popularity. For a more detailed overview of this interpretation, see, among others, J. Annas, ―Plato the Sceptic‖, in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, supplementary volume (1992), pp. 43-72; M. Bonazzi, Academici e Platonici: Il dibattio antico sullo scetticismo di Platone (Milan: Lettre Economia Diritto, 2003); H. Tarrant, Scepticism or Platonism? (Cambridge: CUP, 1985).
4
According to the norms of what we now take to be exegetical accuracy, Proclus‘ readings can indeed only be described as ―fecund misinterpretations‖6 of Plato. Nevertheless, it is an ―absurdly anachronistic‖7 exercise to hold him to contemporary scholarly standards. Not only did Proclus read a Plato that differed from our own,8 but he read him in the light of contextual information which we no longer possess,9 and according to presuppositions which we can no longer admit.
For Proclus, Plato‘s teachings were not simply the product of brilliant mind but the fruit of a union (ἕκςζζξ) with the divine, itself the climax of a long intellectual and spiritual training.10 Plato was not chosen for this experience, nor was he born with a special access to the divine denied to most men.11 He simply led a life that allowed him to participate in this
6 This expression is employed several times by Ph. Hoffmann to characterize the Neoplatonic interpretations of
Plato and Aristotle in his article entitled ―What was commentary in late Antiquity? The example of the Neoplatonic commentators‖ in A companion to ancient philosophy, ed. M. L. Gill and P. Pellegrin (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), pp. 597-624.
7 S. Stern-Gillet, ―Proclus and the Platonic Muse‖, in Ancient Philosophy, vol. 31 (2011), pp. 363-380 at 377. 8 ―Au temps de Proclos, il y avait encore des traditions diverses, et non pas une vulgate uniforme, un « texte
reçu » à l‘exclusion de tout autre‖. H. Alline, Histoire du texte de Platon (Paris: Libraire ancienne Honoré Champion, 1915), 171.
9 Proclus, although born in the capital of a Christian empire nearly a millennium after the Peloponnesian wars
and given a Hellenised Latin name, was an anachronism. In the midst of a veritable sea-change in the Mediterranean world, he and his circle remained dogged proponents of the language, culture, and religion of Classical Athens. As S. Anghel has recently argued, it is very unlikely that the religious practices and cultural tastes of the Neoplatonic Academy of Plutarch were shared by more than a tiny minority of the Athenian population during Proclus‘ lifetime. See S. Anghel, ―Living with the past: the City and its Philosophers in Late Antique Athens‖, in Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft, vol. 20, no. 1 (2012), pp. 94-119. To the three case studies which Anghel proposes, we would add that of V. Procli, 11. Syrianus and Lachares‘ reluctance to worship in front a stranger, and their astonishment at the young Proclus‘ openness in his worship of the new moon, can only be signs of the increasing privacy with which traditional Hellenic ceremonies were conducted, even by members of the Academy. On the Neoplatonic Academy and its relation to the city of Athens, see, inter alia, A. Frantz, ―From Paganism to Christianity in the Temples of Athens‖, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. 19 (1965), pp. 185-205; ―Damascius‖ in DPhA, vol. 2 (1994), pp. 541- 593 at 548-555. By grace of time, place, and inclination, Proclus therefore had access to incomparably more contextual information regarding Plato than the modern scholar.
10 For a brief outline of the contemplative practice which leads to union, see TP, I.15, 24-16, 18 and our
commentary thereon.
11 On these points, we are in agreement with D. G. MacIsaac, who writes that ―what it means for the dialogues
to be revelation… is not that they were written by a soul who had a different sort of access to the divine than most men. Rather, Plato had noetic insight into the intellectual, intelligible, and henadic orders that lie above us simply to a higher degree‖. D. G. MacIsaac, ―Proclus: Philosophy as the Exegesis of ‗Sacred‘ Texts‖, in Philosophy and the Abrahamic Religions: Scriptural Hermeneutics and Epistemology, ed. T. Kirby, R. Acar, and B. Baş (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013), pp. 95-134 at 119. MacIsaac also notes that ―One could object… that Plato does have a different sort of access [to the divine] because he is in fact a god, in terms of Proclus‘ three-fold classification in the Elements of Theology prop. 184 into divine, not-divine but exercising perpetual intellection, and passing from intellection to unintellection. However, it is highly unlikely that Proclus thought Plato to be a soul in this first category. The requirement of perpetual intellection,
5 ―best form of activity‖12, and proceeded to teach others how to do the same. Proclus therefore saw in Plato‘s teachings a religious and philosophical system by which one might not only live the best of lives, but also understand reality as it truly is.
This understanding of Plato led Proclus to treat the dialogues and letters as ‗revealed‘13 texts written with a specifically pedagogical intent. This at once precluded any superfluity of content and permitted the commentator to see a certain degree of polysemy in nearly every passage.14 It is unsurprising then that Proclus‘ Platonic commentaries are wildly different from their modern equivalents, containing vast elaborations of seemingly trivial
for example, would rule out something as typically human as sleeping. Therefore, it is more likely that Plato is ‗divine‘ in the sense of being a particularly strong partial soul who has come down into the world of genesis intentionally for the providential care of weaker souls‖. ―Proclus: Philosophy as the Exegesis of ‗Sacred‘ Texts‖, 119, note 40. Plato‘s soul, therefore, is neither a god upon the psychic level, nor perpetually attendant upon the gods, but one of the many partial souls which ―are at certain time attendant upon the gods (εεκ ὁπαδμὶ πμηέ)‖ (see IT, prop. 185). But whence, one might ask, comes this strength of which MacIsaac speaks if Plato‘s soul is neither substantially different from other human souls, nor has been sent specifically by the gods (such as the divine souls described at In Remp., II.118, 8-119, 2)? The answer to this further question may lie in Proclus‘ often overlooked theory of metensomatosis. For Proclus, forgetfulness (θήεδ) of the divine and the real nature of things was the final step in the process that causes the descent of human souls into the world of becoming (βέκεζζξ) (on this four step process, described Phaedrus, 248c5-8, see In Phaedr., 170, 25-171, 15; on forgetfulness, see, inter alia, In Tim., III.43, 4-10; for other citations pertaining to this, see Ph. Hoffmann, ―Un Grief Antichrétien chez Proclus : L‘ignorance en Théologie‖, in Les Chrétiens et L’hellénisme: Identités religieuses et culture grecque dans l’Antiquité tardive, ed. A. Perrot [Paris: Édition Rue d‘Ulm, 2012], pp. 161-266 at 182, note 71). Were a partial soul, however, to preserve its memory of these things through several lives, it might then accede to a daimonic, or even a divine life (on the possibility of a human soul existing ‗in relation [ἐκ ζπέζεζ]‘ to a daimonic or divine body, see In Remp., II.310, 18-21). Association with a divine or a daimonic soul would certainly have a beneficent effect on a partial soul, and when it again entered into ‗coordination (ηαηάηαλζξ)‘ with a human body, one might well imagine that its memory of the divine would be a good deal sharper than that of the average partial soul.
12 TP, I.16, 19.
13 MacIsaac‘s above cited point (―Proclus: Philosophy as the Exegesis of ‗Sacred‘ Texts‖, 119) cannot be
over-emphasized. Plato‘s teachings are ‗revealed‘ for Proclus in the sense that Plato, having achieved union with the gods, reveals to us in them the truth concerning these gods and the reality which depends on them. They are not ‗revealed‘, however, in the sense in which the Qu’ran is often believed to have been revealed to Muhammad, i.e. directly dictated from a divine source. This, of course, does not preclude the complicity of the gods in the revelation of the truth concerning them to humankind. As Proclus states clearly ―the Platonic philosophy… initially shone forth according to the will, similar in form to the Good, of the gods‖ (TP, I.5, 6-8). Proclus‘ gods are not passive entities. They are the Good, and their will is therefore the Good for all things. The greatest Good for humankind, in Proclus‘ eyes, was undoubtedly the existence of the Platonic philosophy, which offers us the key to union with the gods and to real happiness.
14 On the characteristics of Proclus‘ interpretation of Plato, see ―Proclus: Philosophy as the Exegesis of ‗Sacred‘
6
points15 and being guided by the unshakable conviction that Plato contradicts neither himself, nor the truth.
Holding such presuppositions concerning the origin and nature of Plato‘s thought, it is evident that Proclus could not have arrived at an interpretation that would satisfy the contemporary student of Plato. Proclus was clearly not a Plato scholar, but he was a Platonist, as was Plato himself, if we are to believe the recent argument of Lloyd P. Gerson.16 In an attempt to break with the prevailing treatment of the Neoplatonic interpretation of Plato, Gerson proposes that we rethink what it means to be a ‗Platonist‘. As he notes, despite the lack of concord amongst contemporary interpreters as to the actual positive content of Plato‘s thought, with regard to its negative content, i.e. to the positions which are rejected in both the Platonic corpus and the indirect tradition, the possibility of a general consensus seems much more promising. For those who hold that we can determine at least to some extent what Plato said,17 that he rejected nominalism, materialism, mechanism, relativism, and skepticism as global answers to the problems of philosophy is likely an acceptable proposition. This rejection, which entails that Plato was at a minimum an antinominalist, an antimaterialist, an antimechanist, an antirelativist, and an antisceptic, is referred to as Ur-Platonism by Gerson18. ‗Platonism‘, therefore, according to him, is ―any version of a positive construct on the basis of Ur-Platonism‖19, meant to provide an alternative to these unacceptable positions. Having established what we may call Platonism, Gerson proceeds to advance an undoubtedly controversial hypothesis. Based on the substantial agreement of the testimonies furnished by the indirect tradition, he argues that one of the possible positive constructs under discussion at the Academy near the end of Plato‘s life was centred on ‗a first principle
15 As MacIsaac writes, ―If a text as a whole is divinely inspired, then it should not contain any superfluous
content. Every word, every gesture or detail, however small, should in its own way be an image of its divine source and should be susceptible of interpretation. This is why Proclus will produce such wonderful bizarre explanations of things like Parmenides‘ smile and Zeno‘s laugh, or explain a simple phrase in Plato like noêsis meta logou by distinguishing six different levels of noêsis, from intelligible intellection (noêsis hê noêtê) down to the imagination, specifying which one of these levels Plato meant to include by the term logos.‖ Ibid., 124.
16 L. P. Gerson, From Plato to Platonism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013).
17 Gerson convincingly dismisses the arguments of those who hold that there to be no possibility of discerning
the content of Plato‘s thought with the evidence at our disposal. See Gerson, From Plato to Platonism, 83-91.
18 On Ur-Platonism, see Ibid., 9-19. 19 Ibid., 305.
7 of all‘, called the Good or the One20. This positive construct, to which Plato may make allusion several times in the dialogues, was adopted by various Platonists throughout the Hellenistic period and Early Empire, and would eventually be championed by Plotinus and his followers.
In light of Gerson‘s thesis, which we are inclined to accept, Neoplatonism cannot be called misinterpretation of Plato without some qualification. True, the Neoplatonic interpreters often claim to find theories in the texts of Plato which are evidently not present. But to call the development of a positive construct already being entertained at the Academy during Plato‘s lifetime and its retro-projection onto Platonic corpus, a ‗misinterpretation‘, pure and simple, is a delicate affair. There is also the possibility that said dialogues and letters were written as pedagogical tools meant to incite the further development of Platonism. Were this the case, then the Neoplatonic approach would be entirely justified.
The following study of the TP proposes to examine this work as an expression of Platonism. We shall therefore argue that the TP represents not a historically accurate portrait of Plato‘s theology, but a Platonic theology, i.e. the development of certain positive theological constructs which were already ‗on the table‘, as it were, at the Academy under Plato‘s leadership.
The TP: Its Purpose and Structure
The ultimate expression of the Proclean interpretation of Plato is to be found in his magnum opus, the TP. As Proclus alludes to in the first chapter of the TP, the basis of the true interpretation of Plato‘s theology remerged with Plotinus (c. 204/5-270), i.e. the concept of the One beyond being and the theological interpretation of the Parmenides.21 The TP is therefore, in Proclus‘ eyes, the culmination of the theological work of the entire Neoplatonic tradition. What Proclus fails to mention, however, is the special debt which this work owes to Iamblichus (c. 242-c. 325).
20 Ibid., 306.
8
In the third chapter of the TP, Proclus offers his readers the following definition of what he takes theology to be: ―All those, then, who have ever yet occupied themselves with theology, calling gods the first principles by nature, say that to treat of these is the theological science.‖22 Theology is therefore, according to Proclus, a science of the gods as first principles. Proclus elaborates his conception of theology as a science in the following paragraph:
in the beginning, collecting together all the common notions concerning the gods, as many as Plato hands down, and examining both the meanings in each case and the values of the fundamental propositions; in the middle [part] enumerating the universal orders of the gods, determining both their individualities and processions according to the Platonic method, and referring all back to the hypotheses of the theologians; in the final [part] discussing the gods celebrated sporadically in the Platonic writings, either hypercosmic or encosmic, tracing the theory concerning them back to the universal genera of the ranks of the divine.23
The Diadochus here tells us that he will begin his scientific theology by collecting together the ‗common notions‘ concerning the gods found in Plato‘s texts. He elsewhere refers to these common notions as our ―untaught and unperverted preconceptions‖24 concerning the gods, or ―our innate notions (αὐημθοεῖξ ικ ἐκκμίαξ)‖25 regarding them. They are therefore those attriubtes that are common to all the gods,26 of which all humans have an innate notion, e.g. that the gods are beautiful, good, wise, etc. It is for this reason that Plato speaks of them so openly, and indeed, the more common the notion, the more thoroughly it is discussed by him. This, of course, does not mean that Plato offers his readers every common notion concerning the gods. He does not, for example, offer an exhaustive list
22 TP, I.12, 11-13. 23 TP, I.9, 9-19. 24 Ibid., I.22, 3. 25 Ibid., I.64, 11. 26 Ibid., I.59, 8-10.
9 of every divine name, nor does he openly affirm the ungenerated existence of the gods. These, however, may be said to constitute the least common of the common notions.
For lack of a body of revealed texts or pronouncements of priestly caste concerning the nature of the divine, it is to these common notions that Greek thinkers, including Plato, appealed when attempting to describe what a god ought to be,27 or more precisely, what ‗godness‘ ought to be. One must indeed never lose sight of the predicative nature of the term εευξ for the Greeks. The list of common notions which Proclus offers are not predicates of a certain subject, but aspects of the definition of single ‗super-predicate‘. That εευξ should mean so many things, and be applied to so many things, underscores the impossibility of arriving at an adequate definition thereof.28 Moreover, as we shall see, the search for such a definition is of limited interest in a polytheistic religion such as that of the Greeks. Traditional Greek theology, therefore, was never confined to seeking an adequate definition of εευξ. Nor is Proclus‘.
Faithful to his outline, Proclus follows his relatively brief discussion of the common notions by spending the rest of TP ‗enumerating (δζανζειμφιεκμξ)‘ and ‗determining (ἀθμνζγυιεκμξ)‘29 the ‗orders (ηάλεζξ)‘, ‗processions (πνμυδμοξ)‘, and ‗ranks (δζαηυζιςκ)‘ of the gods. With this vocabulary of ordering and of organization, Proclus leaves aside the question of what ‗godness‘ means and takes up a new line of inquiry. He now turns to examine the organization of the gods as a system of relations, or, put otherwise, he wishes to know where the gods are in relation to one another. Proclus‘ scientific theology therefore shifts early on from what might be termed a ‗categoriology‘ to a taxology (in the most literal sense of the word).
27 See R. Parker, On Greek Religion (London: Cornell University Press2011), 34-36; G. Betegh, ―Greek
Philosophy and Religion‖, in A Companion to Ancient Philosophy, ed. M. L. Gill (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), pp. 625-639 at 631.
28 As R. Parker writes, ――godness‖ is a predicate that no definition can circumscribe.‖ On Greek Religion, 98.
Proclus himself also admits the incredible polysemy of this word, writing that εεὸξ may be applied equally to what is simply a god, what is a god by union, a god by participation, a god by contact, and a god by similitude. This means that henads, intellective beings, divine souls, intermediary beings such as daimones, and even human souls may be qualified by the predicate εεὸξ. See TP, I.115, 14-21.
29 Although often translated by English verbs such as ‗to distinguish‘ or ‗to determine‘, the original sense of the
10
The attempt to define ‗godness‘ was of limited interest for the Greeks in that it did not tell them what they really wanted to know about their gods, namely, what they are. In a polytheistic religion, the essence of the gods is as much a matter of what they have in common (i.e. their unity) as of their individuality (ἰδζυηδξ). Which god has precedence in a given context? Am I overlooking a certain god? These are the types of questions which would have exercised the mind of every Greek worshipper, and they are questions which may only be answered by discovering the individuality of the gods. This individuality can only be determined by studying their relation to one another and to the things which depend upon them. To study the individualities of the gods is therefore to systematically arrange the gods. We therefore find the tendency towards the systematic arrangement of the divine expressed in nearly every aspect of Greek religion, from the divine genealogies of the poets, to the local pantheons of each polis, to the ideas which Proclus finds in Plato. Moreover, this taxological approach to Greek theology was undoubtedly amplified by the Neopythagorean interpreters of Plato, who would not have hesitated to impose their mathematical ideas on the divine. Iamblichus, of course, was one of the principle adherents of Platonic Neopythagoreanism.30
This idea of theology as a taxology of the divine was in fact inherited by Proclus from his Neoplatonic predecessor Iamblichus. It is in the works of this earlier Neoplatonist that there first appears the idea of a ‗theological science (εεμθμβζηὴ ἐπζζηήιδ)‘31, i.e. a science not of separate substances, but specifically of divine beings.32 The purpose of this science for Iamblichus is immediately betrayed by the vocabulary according to which he describes the gods, namely, ‗wholes‘, ‗parts‘, ‗sets‘, ‗multitudes‘, ‗orders‘, ‗series‘, ‗ranks‘, ‗plans‘, etc. It was a concerted effort to determine the individualities of the gods by organizing them as scientifically as possible.
30 On Iamblichus‘ possible debt to the Neopythagorean interpreters of Plato, see J.-M. Narbonne, Plotin: Œuvres complètes, tome I, vol. I, with the collaboration of M. Achard, text ed. L. Ferroni (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2012), ccxli.
31 Iamblichus, De communi mathematica scientia,ed. U. Klein (Leipzig: Teubner, 1891), 88, 19.
32 For an overview of the evolution of theology into a science in late Antiquity, see H. D. Saffrey, ―Les débuts
de la théologie comme science (IIIe-VIe siècle)‖ in Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, vol. 80,
11 With the loss of so much of his corpus, it is difficult to tell to what extent Iamblichus developed this idea. Nevertheless, it has been argued, based on two supposed references by Proclus,33 that Iamblichus also authored a work entitled the Platonic Theology. Proclus‘ statements, however, are extremely ambiguous. To immediately conclude that they refer to the title of a lost Iamblichean work would be imprudent, as each could just as easily be referring to no more than a well-known passage in another Iamblichean work which treated of Plato‘s theology.34
A far more certain fruit of Iamblichus‘ pen was a work known as On the Gods. This work is mentioned by Iamblichus himself,35 who tells us that it contained a discussion of the properties of the gods, while Proclus mentions that it describedthe genera of being and their proper place within the structure of reality.36 It is tantalizing speculate as to the content and structure of this treatise and as to whether it might have provided Proclus with prototype for his own theologies, especially if we are to take the opening chapters of Sallustius‘ (fl. 4th cent.) De deis as an haute vulgarisation of its contents.
Were this the case, On the Gods may have begun, like Sallustius‘ work, with a summary of the necessary qualifications of the aspiring theologian, and have likewise contained an explanation of the nature of myth, a classification of various myths, an examination of the nature of the first cause, and a treatment of the divine hierarchy.37 All of these things are to be found in the TP in a similar order, giving some small credence to the theory that Proclus may have made use of On the Gods when laying out the structure of his own work.
Whether Iamblichus‘ project of theology as a taxological science was already installed at the Neoplatonic Academy upon Proclus‘ arrival is difficult to say. The names of two works by Syrianus (c. 375-437), On the Theology of Orpheus and On the Gods in
33 See TP, III.44, 1-5; In Parm., 1067, 33-34.
34 On these two references and their fundamental ambiguity, see S.-W., III.44, note 1.
35 Iamblichus, Protrepticus,ed. and trans. É. Des Places (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1989), 146, 6.
36TP, I.11.52, 4-5
12
Homer, and Proclus‘ intimate knowledge of each,38 cannot but catch our interest. Nevertheless, their content and form remain entirely unknown to us. Proclus‘ attribution of the theological reading of second hypothesis of the Parmenides to Syrianus, however, seems proof enough that he and his master were of one mind with regard to the importance of the Iamblichean project.
Aside from nature of his own religion and the tradition of which he was the inheritor, Proclus may also have had a powerful external impetus to consider theology as taxology. Following the failure of Porphyry‘s (c. 234-c. 305) massive treatise Against the Christians to halt Christianity‘s spread,39 the Neoplatonists seemed to have abandoned open polemic and turned towards more subtle means of resisting this growing menace. Amongst these subtler means was the possibility of the shoring up the Greek religion by providing it with surer foundations than easily abolished rituals and easily demolished altars. To insure its survival, Proclus and others may have felt that the Greek religion would have to be given a scientific basis, one that the seemingly ignorant Christians could never hope to undermine.40
Although a host of supplemental raisons d’être or ζημπμί may be proposed for the TP,41 it is clear from his description of its contents that the desire to realize the Iamblichean
38 These two works are ascribed to both Syrianus and Proclus by the Suda, while On the Theology of Orpheus is
also mentioned by Marinus (V. Procli, 27). Marinus tells us that Proclus later added copious scholia to this work at the request of his students, which is likely also the case of On the Gods in Homer, which would explain why they are ascribed to both authors.
39 On this work, see R. M. Berchman, Porphyry Against the Christians (Leiden: Brill, 2002).
40 As Ph. Hoffmann argues, ―le projet de Proclus – construction et exposition d‘une théologie systématique –
apparaît comme une réponse globale à la doxa chrétienne et à ses erreurs. La théologie est une science, qui se déploie non seulement dans les commentaires des dialogues de Platon, mais aussi dans les deux œuvres majeures que sont les Éléments de théologie et la Théologie platonicienne‖. ―Un Grief Antichrétien chez Proclus : L‘ignorance en Théologie‖, 190.
41 Among the suggestions for the TP‘s purpose, we find the argument of S. Rappe, who writes concerning
Neoplatonic texts that ―Decoding these texts, involves seeing them as something like meditation manuals rather than mere texts. The non-discursive aspects of the text - the symbols, ritual formulae, myths, and images - are the focus of the pedagogy. Their purpose is to help the reader to learn how to contemplate, to awaken the eye of wisdom, to, in the words of the Chaldean oracles, ‗Open the immortal depth of the soul; open all [your] eyes up in the heights.‘ In other words, these texts constitute a language of vision.‖ S. Rappe, Reading Neoplatonism: Non-Discursive Thinking in the Texts of Plotinus, Proclus, and Damascius (Cambridge: CUP, 2000), 3. Concerning the TP specifically, she writes further that ―the Platonic Theology is meant to be a support, not for argument, but for vision. The text can be seen as iconic, and the system that it supposedly conveys is more like a ritual invocation or theurgic rite than a handbook of metaphysics.‖ Reading Neoplatonism: Non-Discursive Thinking in the Texts of Plotinus, Proclus, and Damascius, 170. While Rappe is correct in pointing out that the TP and other Neoplatonic these texts were meant to serve as aids to contemplative introspection, this certainly does debar them from containing dialectical argumentation. As Proclus points out, what distinguishes Plato and
13 project of a scientific theology was among the fundamental motives behind Proclus‘ magnum opus. It is, therefore, the archetype of all medieval and modern scientific theologies.
To return to the description of the TP‘s contents, although Proclus himself divides the work into three parts, in reality, it could easily be divided into four, as it begins with an independent prolegomenon in twelve chapters which seeks to prove the legitimacy of Proclus‘ entire enterprise. This prolegomenon is immediately followed by seventeen chapters on the ‗common notions‘ concerning the gods provided by Plato throughout his dialogues. These first two parts, which together constitute the first book of the TP, are followed by an examination of the divine hierarchy as revealed by Plato, beginning with a long discussion of the ―universal orders of the gods‖ in Books II-V.42 Among these universal orders of gods we find the One (Book II), the intelligible gods (Book III), the intelligible-intellective gods (Book IV), and the intellective gods (Book V). Following this treatment of the universal gods, Proclus begins an exposition of the particular orders of the gods, which include the hypercosmic, hypercosmic-encosmic, and encosmic gods, in Book VI. It is amidst this examination, however, while treating of the hypercosmic-encosmic gods, that the TP as we now possess it comes to a close. According to the schema provided in the above cited paragraph, this break at the level of the hypercosmic-encosmic gods would seem to indicate that the work has come down to us in an incomplete form, as Proclus leaves untreated the final δζάημζιμξ of the particular gods, the encosmic gods, featured most prominently in the Timaeus and the Sophist.43
the Platonic tradition from other traditions of divine revelation is that it communicates its knowledge of the divine by means of dialectical argumentation as well as the other three methods (on these four theological methods, see the central essay of this volume). The TP, therefore, being a text within the Platonic tradition, should contain this same form of argumentation about the divine. Besides a meditation manual, the TP has also been seen as part of an attempt to permanently install a rigid hermeneutical system within the School of Athens. On this argument see P. Athanassiadi, La lutte pour l’orthodoxie dans le platonisme tardif : de Numénius à Damascius (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2006); Vers la pensée unique: la montée de l’intolérance dans l’Antiquité tardive (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2010). For a critique of Athanassiadi‘s thesis, see S. Fortier, ―Proclus et l‘orthodoxie: une réponse au travail récent de Polymnia Athanassiadi‖ in Dionysius, vol. 29 (2011), pp. 181-192.
42 See our commentary on this paragraph infra.
43 ―Therefore, looking at these doctrines, it is necessary to investigate each rank of gods in those dialogues…
from the Timaeus, the theory concerning the intelligible gods, the divinely inspired sketch of the demiurgic monad, and the most complete truth concerning the encosmic gods… from the Sophist, all the generation under the [sphere of] the moon and specific nature of [its] appointed gods.‖ TP, I.25, 8-18.
14
When the first volume of their landmark translation of the TP was published in 1968, H. D. Saffrey and L. G. Westerink, of whom more shall be said below, held that the work was fundamentally incomplete.44 By the publication of the final volume nearly thirty years later, however, they held the opposite to be true.45 They now argued that the work, as it has come down to us, is complete. In support of this assertion, they proposed that due to the sheer number of encosmic gods mentioned by Plato, finishing the third section of the TP with the same detail as he had begun it would have been too great an undertaking for Proclus. Moreover, Proclus would have already treated of these gods in the lost portion of his In Parm. concerning the second hypostasis. Secondly, they argued that there is evidence that at least one Byzantine scholiast knew of only six books of the TP, while Damascius (c. 458- c. 538) does not refer to lost sections of it when he treats of the encosmic gods in his own commentary on the Parmenides.
The arguments which Saffrey and Westerink assemble in favour of the work‘s completeness are certainly interesting, but none of them is wholly unassailable. More crucially though, they offer no explanation as to why Proclus proposes, and then fails to produce, a treatment of all three δζάημζιμζ of particular gods, from the hypercosmic to the encosmic. Although the encosmic gods are indeed treated of in the In Tim., and would likewise have been in both the lost portions of the In Parm. and his commentary on the Sophist, this would hardly have been reason enough to exclude them from the TP. Indeed, by that logic, the entire work need not exist, as every part of its contents was certainly discussed elsewhere by Proclus: the intelligible gods in his commentary on the Philebus, the hypercosmic-encosmic gods in his commentary on Phaedrus, and so forth. The TP, however, could hardly have been meant to offer entirely new expositions of Plato‘s thought.46 It is rather, like all succeeding systematic theologies, a work of synthesis, the distillation of more detailed exegeses.
44S.-W., I.lxiii-lxiv.
45Ibid., VI.xxxv-xliv.
46 Although it nowhere seems to contradict the contents of the In Parm., In Remp., or In Tim., it is not
impossible, however, that the TP contains refined versions of previous interpretations of other dialogues whose commentaries are now lost.
15 If anything, Proclus was an astonishingly productive author. Marinus tells us that he would, on average, write seven hundred lines of prose a day.47 At that rate, over the course of thirty years, he could have produced forty-thousand pages of Greek as we now present it in an Oxford Classical Text or a Budé edition. The TP, as we now possess it, might have taken him less than a month to compose. We may therefore justly wonder at the assertion that he lacked either the energy or the initiative to finish such a work, even with the reduced capacities of old age. It is indeed far more likely that the TP, like the majority of the Proclean corpus, is missing a substantial portion. Whether this fragment died with Proclus or was sacrificed upon the altar of time, we cannot know. We may nevertheless seek consolation in that fact that what remains of the TP still constitutes the longest surviving work of any Neoplatonist.
The Prolegomenon
Although grouped with the fifteen chapters upon the common notions concerning the gods so as to form a single book, the first twelve chapters of the TP clearly constitute a self-contained whole. Their content and structure differ from that of any other part of the TP, and such distinct prolegomena are common amongst Proclean48 and Neoplatonic works in general49.
This twelve-chapter prolegomenon contains two basic narratives. One of these is a pedagogical narrative, clearly composed of two sections, one of seven chapters, and one of five.50 The first (chap. 1-7) offering a general introduction as to why Plato‘s works are the source of a scientific theology, while the second (chap. 8-12) offers the ideal case study as proof that Plato did indeed treat of theological considerations. This first section begins with a history of the exegesis of Plato (chap. 1), followed by a discourse on how theology (including the present work) should be taught (chap. 2), a definition of theology (chap. 3), a
47 V. Procli, 22, 31-32.
48 See, for example, the In Tim. and the In Remp.
49 See, for example, the spurious prolegomenon added to Ammonius‘ commentary on Porphyry‘ Isagoge. 50 This point is well noted by Saffrey in his article ―La Théologie platonicienne de Proclus, fruit de l'exégèse du
16
presentation of the four possible modes of exposing theological truth (chap. 4), a presentation of the Platonic dialogues in which such truth is to be found in greatest abundance (chap. 5), a hypothetical objection to this entire enterprise (chap. 6), and a response to this objection (chap. 7).
The following five chapters constitute a justification of the response given in chap. 7. Having asserted that Plato does indeed discuss theological matters, because there is a dialogue that treats almost exclusively of theology, namely, the Parmenides, Proclus argues that there are two possible ways of reading the Parmenides, particularly its so-called ‗second half‘ (chap. 8): either it is to be treated as a logical exercise (chap. 9), or as theological tract (chap. 10). If we agree that the latter is true, then we must accept, with Syrianus, that the second hypothesis teaches the hierarchy of ontological reality, and therefore, by analogy, the divine hierarchy (chap. 11). Therefore, if we accept the general outlines of the Syriano-Proclean interpretation of the Parmenides (chap. 12), we must conclude that Plato did indeed leave us with his theological reflections.
Aside from this pedagogical narrative, however, the prolegomenon also offers a historico-philosophical narrative that details the evolution of the theological interpretation of Plato up to the time of Proclus. It begins with a basic overview of this history (chap. 1), followed by a demonstration that it is the Platonic tradition that has the truest conception of theology (chap. 2-3). It then goes to show that the Parmenides is the key to the Platonic understanding of theology (chap. 4-7). In the final five chapters (8-12), Proclus proceeds through the historical development of the interpretation of the Parmenides, beginning with those Platonists who thought it to be naught but a logical exercise and proceeding through the various successive Neoplatonic interpretations of the dialogue (Plotinus, Porphyry/Amelius, Iamblichus), which culminate in the correct Syriano-Proclean interpretation.51
Although it is replete with discussion of other dialogues, as the preceding summary indicates, the prolegomenon to the TP is clearly focused on the Parmenides. We must bear in mind, however, that this focus on the Parmenides does not imply that the TP is simply a
51 The link between this exegetical history of the Parmenides and that offered at In Parm., 1051-1064, is well
17 further exegesis of the dialogue.52 The TP does indeed offer compressed exegesis of the Parmenides, but it is presented alongside similar exegeses of the theological content of other dialogues. It is the theological content of these other dialogues that Proclus will use to flesh out the bare-bones presentation of Plato‘s theology in the second part of the Parmenides. His goal is therefore not to re-examine the Parmenides, but to explicate Plato‘s theology as a whole, drawing on the resources of the entire Platonic corpus.
The Text, the Translations, and the Present Work
The date of the TP‘s composition with relation to the rest of Proclus‘ writings is difficult to construe.53 If we are to believe Marinus, then the commentaries on the Phaedo,54 the Timaeus,55 and several other unspecified works56 were products of Proclus‘ late twenties. Hagiographical amplifications aside, we have no reason to doubt that the In Tim. was one of Proclus‘ earlier works.57 This theory of an early composition would also account for the extremely developed considerations on the Timaeus, especially concerning the Demiurge, found within the TP. The TP also contains several clear references to the In Parm.,58 and we may therefore assert with some degree of certitude that it was composed after both the In Tim. and the In Parm.
52 See C. Steel, ―Le Parménide est-il le fondement de la Théologie platonicienne?‖ in Proclus et la Théologie platonicienne, pp. 373-398.
53 As A-Ph. Segonds asserts, ―L‘étude de la chronologie de l‘œuvre de Proclus est pratiquement impossible,
parce que manquent largement les références à des événements contemporains datables, et que les renvois d‘un ouvrages à l‘autre sont trop peu nombreux et souvent incertains. Quant à la recherche d‘une ―évolution interne‖, le caractère systématique de la philosophie de Proclus la rend très difficile‖. See A.-Ph. Segonds, ―Liminaire‖ in Proclus et la Théologie platonicienne, xix, n. 18. This contention notwithstanding, Segonds tentatively states that ―selon toute probabilité, la Théologie platonicienne est, sinon le tout dernier ouvrage de Proclus, du moins l‘un des plus tardifs‖. See ―Liminaire‖, xix.
54 V. Procli, 12, 13-15. 55 Ibid., 13, 15-16. 56 Ibid.
57 Indeed, no scholar has yet called this assumption into question.
58 See TP, I.41, 8-9; 59, 2-4; 61, 17-18. These references were first catalogued by J. Freudenthal in his article
―Zu Proklos und dem Jüngeren Olympiodor‖ in Hermes, vol. 16 (1881), pp. 201-224. Freudenethal also sees a reference to the In Tim. at TP, V.72, 7, yet S.-W. rightly points out (S.-W., I.72, note 2), the phrase is far too ambiguous to allow us to draw any firm conclusions.
18
The only other Proclean work whose composition one might hazard to place anterior to that of the TP is the IT. Many of the theoretical deficiencies of the latter with regard to the former may be ascribed to the obvious formal differences between the two.59 This, however, may not be the case for the developed treatment of Limit and Unlimited found within the TP.60 The notable absence of this doctrine from the IT, where it would have evidently been most welcome, could suggest the anteriority of the IT to the TP.
If the TP‘s history during Proclus‘ life is obscure, its later existence is only somewhat less mysterious.61 The history of its transmission is akin to that of most other Neoplatonic works. The TP was clearly known to Proclus‘ immediate successors, as it is cited by both Damascius62 and the Pseudo-Dionysius63. With the closing of the Neoplatonic Academy in 529, however, its readership would have diminished drastically. It is not improbable that Proclus was still being read by the last of the Greek Platonic commentators, Stephanus of Alexandria (fl. 7th cent.). A copy of the work may have made its way into Arab world and eventually into the hands of al-Kindī64(c. 801–873), but everything else that remained of it was preserved in the Byzantine monasteries.
Scholia from a manuscript of the In Tim. indicate that it was being read in Byzantium as early as the ninth century, but it is not until George Pachymerus (1242-c. 1310) that we again find citations from the TP in the work of a datable author. It was thanks to Nicholas of Cusa, who brought it back from his mission to Constantinople in preparation for the Council of Florence, that the work first entered the Latin world. Unable to read it in the original,
59 Examples of theories found within the TP but not in the IT include the problem of ‗inverse‘ participation (TP,
III.15, 9-14), the concept of super-unity (TP, V.103, 17), and, most notably, the theory of the intelligible-intellective gods. The former work also contains significant developments of the doctrines of the henadic mode of knowledge, of divine providence, and of the superessentiality of the henads. See T. Lankila, ―Henadology in the Two Theologies of Proclus‖, in Dionysius, vol. 28 (2010), pp. 63-76 at 67. As Dodds points out (Dodds, xvii, note 2), however, this doctrine is not an innovation of the TP. It was already to be found in Proclus‘ Phaedrus commentary, which predated at least the In Parm. See In Parm., 949, 38ff.
60 On the presence of this theory in the TP and its absence from the IT, see ―Henadology in the Two Theologies
of Proclus‖, especially p. 76.
61 The following section is based on Saffrey‘s detailed textual history at S.-W., VI.xliv-lxxiii. 62 See Dam. In Parm., I.55, 16-21; I.81, 14-19; II.48, 21-24.
63 See I. Perczel, ―Pseudo-Dionysius and the Platonic Theology: A Preliminary Study‖, in Proclus et la Théologie platonicienne, 491-532.
64 See J. Jolivet, ―Pour le dossier du Proclus arabe: Al-Kindî et la Theologie platonicienne‖, in Studia Islamica,
vol. 49 (1979), pp. 55-75; see also G. Endress, ―The New and Improved Platonic Theology‖, in Proclus et la Théologie platonicienne, pp. 553-570.
